Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-05-24
THE COOPERATION PROBLEM.


A great deal is being said just now,
both pro and con, in regard to co-opera-
ton and profit sharing methods. Some
little time since THE DEMOCRAT published
the views OF Leland Stanford, of Cali
iornia lone OF the most earnest and elo-
vuent advocates OF the cooperative sys-
tenn. Appended will be found an editorial
clipped from the Kansas City Times,
written in the light of different stand
point:
Cooperative and proft-sharing methods
would be most excellent things in every
branch of business if there were no losses
ever to intervene. But when these come the
workmen must be prepared to bear their
proportion of them. and herein lies the great
drawback to every cooperative plan hereto.
fore proposed or suggested. Everybody can
see clearly enough the desirability of sharing
profits, but the great majority draw rapidly
back when it is suggested that those who
share the profits of business must also
share the losses. Yet before proft-sharing
or cooperation can become an effective
agency for the solution of labor problems,
this very question of loss will have to be
met, discussed fairly and faily settled.
At the last session of the Forty-ninth
Congress Senator Stanford, of California,
made quite a practical speech ON co-opera-
| ton, bat he did not 90 into the details Of
the subject nor elaborate it in such way
as to set forth its weak points equally with
| its strong ones. No question, if fully
carried out, would go deeper to the roots Of
nearly every difficulty which has arisen
or conflict which has ensued between
| capital and labor. 1t deals directly with
! those personal qualities which distinguish
successful from unsuccessful men every
where, under all conditions and in the
midst of all sorts of surroundings and situa-
| tions.
| Before he becomes an employer man
must necessarily take more risks than the
man who works for him. He must make
his investment, pay out his money, take all
chances in building up trade and lose
| what he puts in if he has made mistake or
acted without Judgment and hastily. In
short, he must answer for everything,
whereas, the man who is in his employ has
only to answer for his work day by day, or
week by week, and the wages he contracts
to receive therefor.
The employer must also put himself in
competition with the whole trade or line Of
production in which he is engaged. He
must exane the markets with ceaseless
scrutiny, foreign as well as domestic. All
SOftS OF expenses must De looked aIter, cas-
ual as well as contingent. He must be con-
stantIy on the lookout for opportunities to
take advantage of the rise and fall of prices.
He must understand exactly where the bulk
of his raw material can be found; that
amount is easy Of access, and that will be its
probable demand. He must also know
where he can buy it best and cheapest.
The employed..has no anxieties or require
ments beyond the range of his mere me-
chanical duties. His income is fixed. He
works day by day, and he only knows when
his wages are good or when they are not.
Sometimes they are cut down, and then he
| strikes. Perhaps he would not do so if he
understood the whole situation, and could
for short time change places with his en-
ployer. Then he would know the absolute
necessity of accepting the downs as we'll as
the ups of business, and that in order to re-
store and maintain n perfect equilibrium
the losses equally with the profits would
have to be borne share and share alike. In
no other way can cooperation be obtained,
as much as it is talked about and urged as
an infallible specific for all labor troubles.